Hello,
> One of the simplist is having software tools that allow network to be
> configured to block user mistakes. By bundling multiple functions in
> a single port - without the ability to externally control the use -
> then the port gets closed, because you could not understand NO FILE
> TR
Richard -
Your ability not to understand makes VNC in general an untrustworthy
product. Controls on a network is not on the users PC, but the network,
where the user has no ability to touch. If you have the ability on transfer files
and I have no ability to block that transfer EXTERNAL to ma
> This is meaningless... If I restrict file transfer on my network, this
> program can be running inside my network - because I have to close the
> ports to try to prevent any file transfers.
Maybe I didn't make the point quite well enough. What I meant was so long as
you can disable any enhanc
> With any VNC release as long as the enhancements can be turned on/off and
> remain compatable with older releases, I think continued development can only
> be a good thing for all platforms.
This is meaningless... If I restrict file transfer on my network, this program
can be running inside m
> There is more file transfer than ftp:
> The smb protocol (aka: samba on unix, file sharing on M$Windows).
> Mail the files from the remote to the local account.
> If your server is on unix and the webserver is on, put your
> file in the
> .../vnc/classes/. directory (no subdirectory) and downloa
> What difference is there if I can transfer the file through my vnc
> connection or if I just connect with vnc and access a sever to
> download the file from. It just saves me a step in sending the file.
> There is no additional security risk.
UltraVNC is (IMO) a good idea. I pulls a number of
esday, December 10, 2002 8:13 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Ultra VNC born (again)?
> >
> > I hope they do not add a new back door into the unix systems
> > as Ultra is
> > adding to its windows client.
>
> What back door? File transfer abil
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:16 PM
To: Glenn Lovitz; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Ultra VNC born (again)?
If the option to enable or disable file accesses via a registry key is enacted, I
believe that most of these arguments would go away. For remote users with a good
From: Glenn Lovitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Ultra VNC born (again)?
Response intertwined with original message:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of
Response intertwined with original message:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Jack Beglinger
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 8:13 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Ultra VNC born (again)?
>
> I ho
> I might quickly add that, the filetranfer component in particular is very
> welcome, as most windows platforms (unlike *nix) do not have a ftp server
> installed by default, and adding one, although possible, is another added
> pain, especially if you want to send a 5k configuration script or
> s
>- Message from Jerry McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 09 Dec
2002 22:13:23 -0500 -
>
>What I object to is; yet another vnc clone, making it appear to be an
>improvement of the original project when in fact it is nothing new,
failing to
>mention in the original announcement that it's a
>- Message from Jerry McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 09 Dec
2002 22:13:23 -0500 -
>
>What I object to is; yet another vnc clone, making it appear to be an
>improvement of the original project when in fact it is nothing new,
failing to
>mention in the original announcement that it's a
13 matches
Mail list logo
